In Response: Preserving a way of life in Escondido

Kirk Effinger’s essay about the residents of the Escondido Country Club area’s effort to save their neighborhood from a housing development is superficial and insulting (“Really? A crusade to save the Escondido Country Club,” Opinion, April 25).

He has the gall to imply it is NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard). Far from it. That term was coined in the 1980s to describe new homeowners, who once they built a house in a rapidly growing area, fought tooth and nail to deny the next prospective homeowner a chance to get theirs.

The homeowners in the country club area of Escondido have been there since the late 1960s and early ’70s. They chose to live around the golf course because it provided a green belt, a place for birds and ducks to thrive and a resort-like atmosphere where golf carts are welcome. Just a few weeks ago local homeowners were shocked to find out that they may be losing the centerpiece of their community, where thousands of weddings, birthday parties, school and charity fundraisers, and high-school and amateur golf tournaments have been held for more than 50 years. This was revealed only after the new owners notified the golf club members that the facility would be closed, permanently, on April 1. So it is insulting to suggest that by resisting the destruction of all of that tradition the community is acting selfishly.

Mr. Effinger mischaracterizes the homeowner-led efforts to stop a Beverly Hills developer from bulldozing the centerpiece of their community as a “crusade” to “mandate” keeping the golf course open. From what I can see, the Escondido Country Club Homeowners Organization (ECCHO) is simply interested in preserving the nature of the community that attracted most of the homeowners to the country club area in the first place.

To answer Mr. Effinger’s question, “Why didn’t the members step up and buy the memberships” when they had the chance? Simple — the previous owners got caught in the economic downturn and immediately realized they were in over their heads. Hoping for an economic turnaround, and to buy time during the five-year Great Recession, they took every cent they could out of the business. The golf course fell into disrepair, as did the restaurant and special-events facilities. The ownership restructured the staff, paying mostly minimum wages, resulting in poor service. Every aspect of the membership experience went downhill rapidly, prompting more than 300 members to quit. Each member, whose only leverage is his dues, made the decision to go elsewhere. It is unreasonable to assume all of the unhappy members could coalesce to form an ownership group at that point in time. Just to get an initiative on the ballot now is going to take a herculean effort.

Finally, I am told the previous ownership group had competing offers, some from buyers interested in reviving the golf course, but they chose to sell to the only bidder who proposed a housing development. The main problem is that few, if any, alternative redevelopment plans have even been considered.

ECCHO’s main objective is to get a fair and reasonable alignment of the needs of the community with the golf course property that is its greatest amenity, and to protect the character and property values of the neighborhood. In no way is ECCHO trying to take away someone else’s property rights. Holding the deed to a property doesn’t allow you to build an airport on it. There are property use restrictions in almost all areas of San Diego.

If Stuck in the Rough LLC wanted to turn the golf course into a cattle ranch, I bet there would be a “crusade to stop that, too.